The study was conducted by the Energy Information Administration (EIE), an agency that, among other things, analyses adoption of consumer electronics products in order to track and forecast household energy use. Televisions and other video display products “account for about 6% of all electricity consumption in U.S. homes”, but the product mix is changing…

An average of 2.3 televisions were used in American homes in 2015, down from an average of 2.6 televisions per household in 2009. The number of homes with three or more televisions declined from the previous survey conducted in 2009, and a larger share of households reported not using a television at all…

Entertainment and information devices, in particular, vary by age: younger households tend to have a lower concentration of televisions per person and a higher concentration of portable devices such as laptops and smart phones.

The percentage of TV-free homes has doubled since 2009. In previous surveys going back to 1997, the fraction of U.S households with no television set at all held steady at around 1.3%. That figured jumped to 2.6% in 2015. The past six years have also seen a drop in the proportion of homes with three or more TV sets – it grew fairly consistently from 30% in 1997 to 44% in 2009, but then fell back to 39% in 2015.

Age is also a factor. The younger the household, the more likely it is to have fewer TVs and more smartphones and laptops, while older households have more televisions and desktop computers.

People in the U.S. love big shopping, food and consumer electronics brands, but are not high on utility, telecommunications and food delivery companies and banks. That’s one take-away from the spring 2017 edition of the list of “America’s most loved brands” by Morning Consult. What was published was only a partial list – intended to draw you in and sign you up for their service – but even so it offers some interesting insights into the way consumers view the companies and industries that compete for their affections.

Data from Morning Consult, Spring 2017 brand study.

Looking at the industry by industry data that Morning Consult published, the average “net favorability” score for telecoms companies was only 21%, ranking 25th out of 28 industry segments assessed. There was an interesting split between telephone and cable companies. Verizon and AT&T came out on top in the category, at 29% and 28% respectively, while Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications (soon to be unified under the single, Spectrum brand) managed only half that, scoring 14% and 12%. Comcast’s Xfinity brand fell in the middle, at 21%. I assume other telecoms companies were included in the survey, but that’s the extent of Morning Consult’s data freeview.

By contrast, online services companies did well. Amazon (76%) and Google (75%) were the highest rated brands of all, and YouTube, also an Alphabet (née Google) brand also made the top ten list at 71%. On the consumer electronics side, Sony also made the top ten, hitting 70% net favorability, with Microsoft coming in second – as a hardware company – at 66%. Apple’s rating wasn’t disclosed, which leads me to suspect that the published list was selected on the basis of teaser value rather than on objective league table standings. Apple is routinely one of the most highly rated brands in the world, and it would be a banner headline for Morning Consult if its data said anything different.

The affection gap between the companies that provide services over and for the Internet and the ones that connect us to it is striking. As many people hate cable and telcos as love online services and consumer electronics companies. It’s another way of saying we do not trust monopoly broadband companies, but we do have faith in the competitive product and service providers we access via those networks. That’s a gap that federal and state policy makers should heed as they weigh subsidy choices, common carrier rules and other major telecoms industry decisions.

The consumer electronics technology market is congealing into two products: smart phones and televisions. And even the television segment is showing weakness. That’s what the raw numbers say, although there’s more to it.

The first caveat is that sales figures are measured in U.S. dollars, and the dollar is getting stronger relative to currencies in key consumer electronics markets, particularly China. So products made and sold in China for yuan will be undervalued on a year over year basis if reckoned in U.S. dollars. So in absolute terms, the market isn’t as soft as it might first appear.

But comparing product category to product category is fair game. On that basis, smart phones are the only major segment that’s still showing growth on both a dollar and unit sales basis.

Steve_Koenig, the senior director for market research at the Consumer Technology Associations, which produces CES, [gave his annual analysis of the market yesterday](), focusing, as he does, on the Magnificent Seven – the top seven consumer electronics technology segments.

That is a sufficient number of segments to find the beginning of the long tail. Smart watches displaced dumb mobile phones for seventh place, with a forward looking sales estimate of $12 billion in 2017. Cameras are increasingly absorbed into smart phones. Desktop computers, laptops and tablets are slipping in both unit and dollar sales terms. All three categories are down individually and show an aggregate decline from 515 million units in 2014 to 380 million units projected for 2017.

That leaves smart phones and televisions. Smart phone unit volumes are up and expected to near 1.5 billion units sold in 2017, although the dollar value is expected to only nudge up slightly.

But TVs are softening, with 2016 and 2017 projections nearly the same and down significantly from their peak in 2014. A big part of the reason is that people are watching video on a variety of devices. In the U.S., barely half – 51% – of video viewing was on a traditional TV in 2016, according to CTA’s research, down from 62% in 2016. Smartphone and tablet viewing is up. Computer viewing is flat, although there’s a distinct shift from desktops to laptops. Smart phones are making the big dent in TVs share of eyeballs though, accounting for 21% of U.S. video viewing in 2016, versus 16% in 2012.

Big screen you can hang on your wall. Small screen you can put in your pocket. Everything else is apps and content.

Wheeler is keeping the plan secret, at least from the public, and has only released a vague talking point summary. The gist of it is that you could install an app, provided by your cable company for free, onto, say, your smart TV and watch the cable channels you subscribe to or buy pay-per-view movies.

What the summary doesn’t say is how your smart TV (or mobile phone or Roku box or whatever) gets access to the programming stream that the free app would decode. There are two options: over the public Internet or via a direct connection to the cable network.

If the latter, then you’ll still need some kind of interface device between the cable outlet on your wall and your TV. The whole point of the app based approach is to prevent third party devices from connecting directly to cable systems on a hardware level. Cable companies won’t have to give you that interface for free.

Of course, it could be built into a cable modem, which you’d still need if you’re buying Internet service from your cable operator. You’d be charged for the modem, although it’s likely the new rules will require those charges to be itemised on your bill so you know how much you’re paying and for what. Even if you can access the programming stream via the public Internet, you’ll still need an ISP. Given the disparity between telco and cable broadband speeds, you’d be even more likely to opt for cable modem service.

If you despair of figuring out how to hook it all up or how to run a cable company’s app – do you think you think they’ll make it easy for you? – then you’ll still have the option of paying a monthly fee, amounting to hundreds of dollars a year, to rent a set top box: nothing changes.

For now, this is all speculation. The FCC’s new set top box rules are bogged down in a dispute over how apps are approved and licensed for use – a scheduled vote on Thursday was cancelled. The secrecy and back room lobbying that infests the FCC’s decision making process means we don’t know what the draft rules actually say, or even what the final rules will be until after – perhaps weeks after – a vote is taken. But there’s no reason to think that the result will be less expensive video service or fewer boxes and cables in your living room. Or the end of extra monthly equipment charges.

A plan to require cable companies (and other pay TV operators) to open up their systems to third party set top boxes hit a wall this morning, as the Federal Communications Commission pulled the item from its monthly meeting agenda, just minutes before it was supposed to begin.

As crafted by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, the plan would have required cable (and satellite and telephone) companies to build apps that would run on boxes made and purchased and installed by pretty much anyone. The apps would provide access to the all the video programming and services offered by the company. An ill-defined committee – apparently made up of industry representatives and supervised by the FCC – would review and approve apps and iron out disputes over programming rights.

This industry panel provoked fierce criticism, not least because many believed that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to arbitrate copyright licensing disputes. That’s an area of the law that comes under the jurisdiction of other federal departments and courts. Objections came from the usual suspects in the industry – i.e. pretty much everyone – and congress critters on both sides of the aisle. And from one very important person: FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who openly bucked fellow democrat Wheeler, saying she “has problems” with the licensing scheme. With both republicans opposed to Wheeler’s plan, her vote was essential.

There’s more to the dispute than the rules themselves. The secrecy that surrounds the plan has also been sharply criticised. The FCC doesn’t publish draft decisions and final versions aren’t made public until sometimes weeks after a vote. But Wheeler is free to negotiate the details with whomever he chooses. So discussions with industry lobbyists – who have deep pockets full of political cash to contribute – continued behind closed doors while only a happy happy, joy joy summary of the plan has been released by Wheeler’s office. That’s business as usual in Washington, and particularly for Wheeler, who has turned the chairman’s role into that of lobbyist-in-chief.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan to set up an industry licensing board to review apps created by pay TV providers that will allow third-party set top boxes to access their programming is slowing down, if not dead in the water. The senior republican and democrat on the house judiciary committee – Bob Goodlatte (R – Virginia) and John Conyers (D – Michigan) – released a joint statement yesterday blasting the plan, saying “there are many unresolved questions about this proposal, not the least of which is the fundamental question of whether the Federal Communication Commission even has the authority to create such a regime”.

That follows sceptical comments about the licensing scheme from three of Wheeler’s fellow commissioners, republicans Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly and democrat Jessica Rosenworcel.

Even Wheeler himself backpedaled, telling a congressional committee that the policy, at this point, is only “90 percent there” and discussions with stakeholders – industry lobbyists, in other words, continues.

Part of the problem is no one outside of the FCC knows what’s actually in the proposed set top box rules. No one except, apparently, the stakeholders who are negotiating with Wheeler. Conyers and Goodlatte have a problem with that, too. They sent him a letter asking him to make his draft plan public…

While much remains unknown, what is clear at this point is that the proposal would benefit from more public process. Different versions of this proposal have circulated for many months now, and while staff for both committees has held numerous discussions with Commission staff and other stakeholders, we have received conflicting accounts about this proposal. Absent a public vetting of the Commission’s proposal, it is unclear what the Commission is planning, let alone its impact.

Without further delay, we request that you release the text of the proposal.

That’s not the way business is done at the FCC, though. Draft decisions are kept secret until after – sometimes long after – approval by commissioners. A vote on the set top box plan, whatever it is, is scheduled for 29 September 2016.

The new rules will require pay-TV providers to offer to consumers a free app, controlled by the pay-TV provider, to access all the programming they pay for on a variety of devices, including tablets, smartphones, gaming systems, streaming devices or smart TVs…

While consumers will still pay their monthly subscription fees for the service, they will be able to download an app to devices they purchase or already own to access pay-TV service, so they are no longer forced to rent boxes from their pay-TV provider. Of course, a consumer may choose to keep their set-top box and enjoy their pay-TV programming as they do today…

Pay-TV providers must provide their apps to widely deployed platforms, such as Roku, Apple iOS, Windows and Android. Doing so will spur competition in the marketplace to develop new competitive products like next-generation streaming devices, smart TVs and tablets.

Commissioners are scheduled to vote on the proposal at their 29 September 2016 meeting. Two other rumored items – regulation of middle mile broadband services and new consumer privacy rules – will have to wait until a later meeting.

The last known manufacturer of video cassette recorders is throwing in the towel. According to Nikkei, Funai Electronics will stop making VCRs next month at the one plant, in China, where it still makes them. The units are sold in the U.S. under the Sanyo brand.

In 2015, Funai sold 750,000 VCRs, mostly as VCR/DVD combos. There was actually some growth in that particular product line – it was cited as one of Funai’s strong points in its annual report – but the overall trend is down, as are Funai’s sales overall. It experienced a 23% drop in revenue last year.

One of the problems cited was a lack of parts – the level of demand is below the point where component manufacturers can make them economically and existing stocks are running out.

VCR tapes are still being made, and likely will be for some time. But if you treasure anything that’s still on tape, you better digitise it soon – it won’t be too many years before the means to play it is gone.

Don’t expect a retro-VCR revival. While there’s an aesthetic and sound quality argument to made on behalf of vinyl records, it’s a lost cause for even advanced versions of the VHS format. Even for Betamax – Sony stopped making tapes last year, long after it shut down its hardware line.

The VCR had a 40 year run. It was the original fair use battleground in the video age. The supreme court’s Betamax decision made it legal for consumers to record material for personal use; without it, the digital world would be a very different place.

So we’re pouring all our energy into Works with Nest and are incredibly excited about what we’re making. Unfortunately, that means we can’t allocate resources to Revolv anymore and we have to shut down the service. As of May 15, 2016, your Revolv hub and app will no longer work.

Thank you for your support and believing in us.

Sucker.

Oops. I said that. They didn’t. Not exactly. But that thought probably passed through the mind of anyone who bought a Revolv hub. With justification.

From a high tech, living-in-dog-years point of view, there’s nothing wrong with what Google did. And yes, I know, Nest is owned by Alphabet, which is now the new name for the Company Formerly Known As Google. And from a high tech, living-in-dog-years point of view, there’s nothing wrong with that.

There’s just one problem.

Consumers don’t care. They give credit or blame to the brand they know, and don’t give a damn what the suits or the geeks say (full disclosure: I used to be both and I’m still a geek). They don’t obsess over light switches, doorbells or coffee pots. They just want the freaking things to work and leave them alone for ten or twenty years.

Shutting down the Revolv servers is a mistake, but by itself it won’t make much difference. If Google and other tech-driven companies keep pulling this same dumb move, though, consumers will shrug off their brands and, eventually, the whole home automation category.

FCC chair Tom Wheeler is all for the draft rules as written – no surprise, his office wrote them. So is Mignon Clyburn, a fellow democrat. The third democrat, Jessica Rosenworcel is not as enthusiastic, though…

This rulemaking is complicated…The most successful regulatory efforts are simple ones. More work needs to be done to streamline this proposal, because in the end for consumers to enjoy the bounty of what we have proposed—execution is all.

So what we have here may not be the precise way forward. But something has got to give. I support Chairman Wheeler’s effort to get this proceeding started.

Our goal should not be to unlock the box; it should be to eliminate the box. If you are a cable customer and you don’t want to have a set-top box, you shouldn’t be required to have one. This goal is technically feasible, and it reflects most consumers’ preferences—including my own.

Pai’s objective is arguably within the scope of the draft rules, although you can find enough devils in the details to drag out the argument for decades. Which is the point Rosenworcel is making. The ultimate vote might be split between commissioners who want to flatten the playing field with simple rules that let anyone play, and those who prefer to keep the game complicated. And firmly inside Washington.